From ... Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!npeer.kpnqwest.net!nreader2.kpnqwest.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: Style question Was: Re: Promoting CL Was: What I want from my Common Lisp vendor and the Common Lisp community References: <3208226254834485@naggum.net> <3B980442.3BE5@synquiry.com> <9n9624$k2q$1@rznews2.rrze.uni-erlangen.de> Mail-Copies-To: never From: Erik Naggum Message-ID: <3208894995746184@naggum.net> Organization: Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway Lines: 13 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 23:43:16 GMT X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@Norway.EU.net X-Trace: nreader2.kpnqwest.net 999906196 193.90.205.95 (Sat, 08 Sep 2001 01:43:16 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2001 01:43:16 MET DST Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.lisp:15898 * Nils Goesche > While I don't see anything wrong with the original code, isn't it > generally considered dangerous not to write macros safe in the first > place even when they don't have to the way they are called in the > first version of the code? When you have complete control over all symbols used, I think doing the full gensym thing is a distractor. However, inline declarations of local function should at least have worked. There is no danger of redefinition outside of the function that would affect the compiler's ability to know exactly what it is doing. ///